The phrase "crimen injuria" seems[to whom?] to be a misunderstanding of the Latin phrase crimen iniuriae, which should mean 'accusation of abusive behaviour'; the word crimen never means crime per se.

Furthermore, in Roman legal parlance, iniuria almost never refers to physical attack or abuse, although it is often associated with it: Rather, iniuria translates better as "[specific instance of or action constituting] injustice," i.e., "violation of rights" or "action to the prejudice of [another's] rights" (in, "not" or "against," + ius/iuris, "[legal or natural-legal] right"), such that many iniuriae involve physical harm and many actions inflicting physical harm constitute iniuria but neither set is a subset of the other. For example, physical harm inflicted upon an aggressor by an innocent party acting in self-defense does not constitute iniuria unless the legal system in question regards it as disproportionate (e.g., when a person uses lethal force in defense of property alone), and assertions deemed defamatory by that system may constitute iniuria actionable in civil or even criminal court even though they inflict no physical harm upon the person against whom they are directed.